ArticleScientific reports2025
Gaussian random fields as an abstract representation of patient metadata for multimodal medical image segmentation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Growing rates of chronic wound occurrence, especially in patients with diabetes, has become a recent concerning trend. Chronic wounds are difficult and costly to treat, and have become a serious burden on health care systems worldwide. Innovative deep learning methods for the detection and monitoring of such wounds have the potential to reduce the impact to patients and clinicians. We present a novel multimodal segmentation method which allows for the introduction of patient metadata into the training workflow whereby the patient data are expressed as Gaussian random fields. Our results indicate that the proposed method improved performance when utilising multiple models, each trained on different metadata categories. Using the Diabetic Foot Ulcer Challenge 2022 test set, when compared to the baseline results (intersection over union = 0.4670, Dice similarity coefficient = 0.5908) we demonstrate improvements of +0.0220 and +0.0229 for intersection over union and Dice similarity coefficient respectively. This paper presents the first study to focus on integrating patient data into a chronic wound segmentation workflow. Our results show significant performance gains when training individual models using specific metadata categories, followed by average merging of prediction masks using distance transforms. All source code for this study is available at: https://github.com/mmu-dermatology-research/multimodal-grf.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.